Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 11 – May 17, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 185Nominal CitationsSrinivasa S & ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited vs. Bharat Electronics Limited & MSTC Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 182Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 183Fayaz Khan v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 184Younus Khan v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 185Judgments/ OrdersForest Staff Involved In Neutralising Bandit Veerappan Entitled To Parity In Reward Consideration With STF Personnel: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Srinivasa S & ors. v. State of KarnatakaCase No: Writ Petition No. 1190 of 2026 c/w WP Nos. 31956, 34040, 36589 of 2025 and WP No. 8003/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181Granting relief to several forest department officers who took part in 'Operation Cocoon' to apprehend the notorious forest bandit Veerappan in 2004, the Karnataka High Court has directed the State to consider sanctioning the withheld rewards to those who were part of the Special Task Force (STF) within 12 weeks.The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the 2015 order of the Forest Department, which restricted the cash payments to a few officers part of the STF during the demise of Veerappan, a sandalwood smuggler and brigand, was 'discriminatory'.“…The Coordinate Bench, upon an elaborate examination of the factual matrix, has categorically held that once the names of the personnel, including those from the Forest Department, are found in the list of eligible beneficiaries prepared pursuant to the Government Order dated 08.07.2005, the State is estopped from denying such benefit on a specious plea that only a limited set of officers, who were present on the date when Koose Munisamy Veerappan was neutralized on 18.10.2004, would alone be entitled for the reward. The said contention of the State has been expressly rejected as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the very object of the Government Order…”.Karnataka High Court Upholds Tender Clause Mandating In-State Recycling Facility For EVM Disposal, Says 'Sensitivity' Of EVMs Justify ConditionCase Title: Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited vs. Bharat Electronics Limited & MSTC LimitedCase No: WP No. 935 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 182The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a tender condition requiring the participating e-waste companies to have a recycling facility within the State cannot be deemed as 'discriminatory' when the concerned items to be processed are 'sensitive' electoral equipment like EVMs and VVPAT units that are decommissioned.The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum opined that such a specific condition was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but 'a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental compliance' considering the sensitive nature of the material to be recycled.“…The condition requiring in-state facilities is thus not a standalone commercial stipulation but a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental governance. The disposal of EVMs and VVPATs is not merely a scrap disposal activity. It involves handling of sensitive electronic components, compliance with environmental norms and prevention of unauthorized reuse or data compromise. Therefore, the insistence on local facilities has a direct nexus with the object of ensuring safe, secure, and compliant disposal…”, the court noted in the order dated April 29.'Trial By Headlines': Karnataka HC Orders Action Against Media Coverage In Darshan Case, Says Press Can't Become Judge, Jury & ExecutionerCase Title: Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors.Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7473 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 183In a significant order upholding the right to a fair trial, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) and the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) to act upon a complaint against 'media trial' filed by Kannada actor Darshan Srinivas, who is the prime accused in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case.The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while allowing the writ petition in part, emphasised that the Ministries are under a statutory obligation to examine the complaint and see if the impugned broadcasts prima facie violated the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.On another note, the court did not take kindly to the counterproductive role that the media has been allegedly playing while Darshan's case is sub judice.“…Freedom of speech is a cherished constitutional value; however, when it degenerates into media-driven adjudication, it ceases to be a safeguard of democracy and becomes a threat to it. The press is a watchdog, but when it assumes the role of judge, jury and executioner, the rule of law stands imperilled. Courts cannot permit the course of justice to be overshadowed by the glare of studio lights”, the high court laid down...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 11 – May 17, 2026

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 11 – May 17, 2026

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers